Legal Opinion
Miller v. Urban
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided November 5, 1937PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
The complaint alleged that the defendant engaged the plaintiff as attorney to represent him in the collection of a claim for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident, that by virtue of the efforts of the plaintiff and a suit brought by him against Richard and Edward Finley a settlement was obtained from their insurer, and that the plaintiff thereby became entitled to compensation on the basis of an agreed contingent fee. The trial court found the issues raised by the denial of these allegations in favor of the plaintiff and rendered judgment for him to recover 25 per cent, of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Erwin M. Jennings Co. v. DiGenovaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
- Nanos v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922
- Thresher v. Stonington Savings BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1896
- French v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899
- Sengebush v. EdgertonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Farrell v. FarrellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Mentor Lagoons, Inc. v. RubinOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- State v. BlakeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
- Sewell v. LainsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1953
- Cottonwood Estates, Inc. v. Paradise Builders, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1981
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.